Share

Abstract

Le Grand and New, in their recent book, “Government Paternalism:
Nanny State or Helpful Friend,” present a novel definition
of paternalism and a framework for thinking about whether any
given paternalistic policy can be considered justifiable. I show that
their framework is flawed in that it restricts justifiable paternalism
to that which is intended to alter individuals’ judgment about the
means they use to pursue their self-determined ends. I show that
the principles they use to justify certain kinds of means paternalism
also justify certain kinds of ends paternalism. In particular, when
there is a body of rigorous social-science evidence that individuals
select ends that they themselves, if they had adequate information
or experience would prefer not to pursue, and when other conditions
are met, ends paternalism may be considered to improve
the wellbeing of the individual as determined by the individual
themselves. I present examples of policies that could be justified
under this framework, and offer cautionary notes.